Excerpt: - .....9th april, 1938, under section 20 of act iv of 1938. the 19th defendant did not follow up his stay application with an application under section 19, but he died on 4th june, 1938, just before the expiry of the sixty days time allowed under section 20. petitioner was impleaded as legal representative op 19th october, 1938 and on that day asked for time to oppose the execution. on 14th december, 1938, he filed a fresh application under section 20. i am of opinion that the application does not lie. the petitioner succeeds to the rights and liabilities in the litigation of his father. his father had already exhausted his remedy under section 20 and by the express terms of that section the decree must be executed against him as it stands. the legal representative is subject to the same.....

Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. Petitioner is the son and legal representative of the 19th defendant against whom the decree was being executed when he got a stay by means of an application dated 9th April, 1938, under Section 20 of Act IV of 1938. The 19th defendant did not follow up his stay application with an application under Section 19, but he died on 4th June, 1938, just before the expiry of the sixty days time allowed under Section 20. Petitioner was impleaded as legal representative op 19th October, 1938 and on that day asked for time to oppose the execution. On 14th December, 1938, he filed a fresh application under Section 20. I am of opinion that the application does not lie. The petitioner succeeds to the rights and liabilities in the litigation of his father. His father had already exhausted his remedy under Section 20 and by the express terms of that section the decree must be executed against him as it stands. The legal representative is subject to the same liability. The petition is dismissed with costs.